The article is not asserting a problem with the quality of the results - what they are asserting is that it is a problem when I (as party A) as Google (as party B) a question, and google gives me an answer, rather than always going to parties C, D, E and F for the answer. Personally, I am torn about this one.
On the one hand, I feel that if party A asks party B a question, it is not the right of parties C, D, E and F to be included in the process - Since the answer is trivial and party B is giving party A what they asked for - If they were better at giving party A what they require, then party A would simply ask them instead.
On the other, I am disturbed at how much potential power this gives party B, no matter how benign they appear to be.

A classic example is with air travel:
None of your own drinks past this point.
People who pay more get to board first.
Wedge yourself into that spot and no moving around the cabin.
When a rule that is really important comes along, people are so jaded that they no longer trust the people whom have paid to look after their safety, and there have been deaths as a result. (An example being cases where people deliberately inflate their life jackets before a plane crash lands in water, and then are stuck at the top of the cabin when it fills with water and cannot get to the exits.)

Have Apple defined "larger royalty payments" or "later"? The fact is, multiple streaming services already exist - Spotify, Pandora, etc. etc. At this point, it is close to a zero sum game - I doubt Apple's involvement will generate many new customers, but rather will be intended to gain customers from the existing services. This is all well and good, as long as they are doing it on their own merit, rather than attempting to cut costs by making artists work for free. That is EXACTLY the sort of thing that helps create "big, monopolistic corporations"

So many Enlightening Experiments:
* Get 10 people
* Attach 5 of them up to electrodes.
* Attach the other 5 up to electrodes, with 6 buttons - 5 will deliver shocks to each of the people without buttons, 1 will deliver a shock to themselves.
* Apply financial incentives
* Observe result.
Variant 1:
* Make sure participants have no way of knowing who shocked them - use some kind of automated system to pay them.
* Observe Result
Variant 2:
* Use 10 people with 10 buttons
* Observe Result
Hypothesis:
People are a lot less altruistic when they think they are not being watched / can get away with it!

Except your ICE would be producing gasses and noise (outputs) which are measurable. Even if you were able to somehow hide these, a well designed experiment would run for long enough to mean that your ICE ran out of fuel.
It is not necessary to look in the box to determine if it works - just make sure you control the inputs and monitor all the outputs for long enough to prevent trickery. The question here seems to be - Did those involved do this, or are they shills working with a con man.

You obviously do not understand the car market, because you left out the most important point : We are a lot less rational than we like to think, and for many people a car is a status symbol. People do not drop 70K on a car that can do speeds which are illegal / impractical in most situations - they pay it because they feel it will get them immediate respect, and possibly get them laid.

I call bull on your story - finding water in Ireland is simply a matter of looking out the window (ie: Right now it is raining, and It seems like it is always raining). That's why the country is so green - the West gets even more rain than the East. I suspect that if you dig almost anywhere and you will hit water sooner or later - it's just a matter of how deep.
Also, how far was he walking? Unless the distance was substantial, it probably didn't matter where you dig.

Most people don't play video games to learn lessons - they play for entertainment. In many cases, that entertainment takes the form of an empowerment fantasy - Be the muscle bound hero, deliver justice, save the day, get the girl (/guy), be adored and admired by the masses etc, etc.
So long as those involved realise the difference between this and reality there is generally not a problem - aside from when some take the empowerment fantasy onto the internet and threaten strangers lives, or when others complain that the empowerment fantasies of others make them feel isolated. Both sides need to get over themselves. Threatening the lives of others is not acceptable. Conversely, not every piece of entertainment out there is going to be focused on you. Get over it.

There will always be scarcity - even in a star trek like fairyland where they say there is "no money". Ask any geek whether they would like the job of being captain of the enterprise, and they will probably say "Hell Yeah!!!" (What's not to like? - Bang alien chicks, be involved in something important, and have amazing adventures!) However, it ignores the important realities, such as "Who cleans the toilets on the enterprise?". Ask who wants that job, and you will get a lot less enthusiasm.
Even without monetary scarcity, there will always be haves and have nots. For one person to be a Captain Kirk, hundreds of others have to be an Ensign Ricky.